Christology of the Old Testament: And a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions Volume Ii Part 23

?e??e???. It occurs independently in one single pa.s.sage only, in Deut.

xxix. 18; in the other pa.s.sages (eight times in Jeremiah, and besides, in Ps. lx.x.xi. 13), it was evidently not taken from the living _usus loquendi_ from which it had disappeared, but from the fundamental pa.s.sage in the written code of law. This fact will, _a priori_, appear probable, when we keep in mind that, among all the books of the Pentateuch, Jeremiah has chiefly Deuteronomy before his eyes; and among all the chapters of Deuteronomy, none more than the 29th; and that Ps.

lx.x.xi. is pervaded by literal allusions to the Pentateuch. But it is put beyond all doubt, when we enter upon a comparison of the pa.s.sage in Deuteronomy with the parallel pa.s.sages. Here we must begin with Jer.

xxiii. 17, where the verbal agreement comes out most strongly, and then we shall, in the other pa.s.sages also (vii. 24, ix. 13, xi. 8, xvi. 12, xviii. 12, and the pa.s.sage under consideration), easily perceive that the word has been borrowed. From a comparison with the fundamental pa.s.sage, it appears that it is the intention of the Prophet to convey here the promise of an eternal duration of the regained blessing, and to keep off the thought that possibly the people might again, as formerly, fall from grace. Of him who walks after the ?????? of his heart, it is said in Deut. xxix. 19 (20): "The Lord will not be willing to forgive him; for then the anger of the Lord and His jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the Lord blots out his name from under heaven."]

[Pg 398]

CHAPTER XXIII. 1-8.

These verses form a portion only of a greater whole, to which, besides the whole of chap. xxii., chap. xxiii. 9-40 also belongs. For these verses contain a prophecy against the false prophets, and by the way also, against the degenerated priesthood (comp. ver. 11); and this prophecy easily unites itself with the preceding prophecy against the kings, so as to form one prophecy against the corrupt leaders of the people of G.o.d. But, for the exposition of the verses before us, it is only the connection with chap. xxii. which is of importance, and that so much so that, without carefully attending to it, they cannot at all be thoroughly understood. For this reason, we shall confine ourselves to bring it out more clearly.

The Prophet reproves and warns the kings of Judah, first, in general, announcing to them the judgments of the Lord upon them and their people,--the fulfilment of the threatenings, Deut. xxix. 22 ff.--if they are to continue in their hitherto unG.o.dly course, chap. xxii. 1-9.

In order to make a stronger impression, he then particularizes the general threatening, showing how G.o.d's recompensing justice manifests itself in the fate of the individual apostate kings. First, Jehoahaz is brought forward, the son and the immediate successor of Josiah, whom Pharaoh-Necho dethroned and carried with him to Egypt, vers. 10-12. The declaration concerning him forms a commentary on the name Shallum, _i.e._, the recompensed one, he whom the Lord recompenses according to his deeds,--which name the Prophet gives to him instead of the meaningless name Jehoahaz, _i.e._, G.o.d holds. His father, who met his death in the battle against the Egyptians, may be called happy when compared with him; for he never returns to his native [Pg 399] land; he lives and dies in a foreign land. The next whom he brings forward is Jehoiakim, vers. 13-19. He is a despot who does every thing to ruin the people committed to him. There is, therefore, the most glaring contrast between his beautiful name and his miserable fate. The Lord, instead of raising him up, will cast him down to the lowest depth; not even an honourable burial is to be bestowed upon him. No one weeps or laments over him; like a trodden down carca.s.s, he lies outside the gates of Jerusalem, the city of the great King, which he attempted to wrest from him, and make his own. Then follows a parenthetical digression, vers.

20-23. Apostate Judah is addressed. The judgment upon her kings is not one with which she has nothing to do, as little as their guilt belongs to them as individuals only. It is, at the same time a judgment upon the people which, by the Lord's anger which they have called forth by their wickedness, is thrown down into the depth, from the height on which the Lord's mercy had raised them.--Next follows Jehoiachin, vers.

24-30. In his name "The _Lord_ will establish," the word _will_ has no foundation; the Lord _will_ reject him, cast him away, and break him in pieces like a worthless vessel. With his mother, he shall be carried away from his native land, and die in exile and captivity. Irrevocable is the Lord's decree, that none of his sons shall ascend the throne of David, so that he, having begotten children in vain, is to be esteemed as one who is childless.

At the commencement of the section under consideration (vers. 1 and 2), the contents of chap. xxii. are comprehended into one sentence.

"Woe to the shepherds that destroy and scatter the flock of the Lord."

Woe, then, to those shepherds who have done so. With this is then, in vers. 3-8, connected the announcement of salvation for the poor scattered flock. For the same reason, that the Lord visits upon those who have hitherto been their shepherds, the wickedness of their doings--viz., because of His being the chief Shepherd, or because of His covenant-faithfulness, He will in mercy remember them also, gather them from their dispersion, give, instead of the bad shepherds, a good one, viz., the long promised and longed for great descendant of David, who, being a _righteous_ King, shall diffuse justice and righteousness in the land, and thus [Pg 400] acquire for it righteousness and salvation from the Lord. So great shall the mercy of the Future be, that thereby the greatest mercy in the people's past history--their deliverance out of Egypt--shall be altogether cast into the shade.

There cannot be any doubt that the whole prophecy belongs to the reign of Jehoiakim; for the end of Jehoiakim and the fate of Jehoiachin are announced as future events.

_Eichhorn_ a.s.serts that this section was composed under Zedekiah; but he could do so only by proceeding from his erroneous fundamental view, that the prophecies are veiled descriptions of historical events. "When Jeremiah"--so he says--"delivered this discourse, Jehoiakim had not only already met his ignominious end (xxii. 19), but Jeconiah also was, with his mother, already carried away captive to Babylon." It is matter of astonishment that _Dahler_, without holding the same fundamental view, could yet adopt its result. He specially refers to the circ.u.mstance that, in ver. 24, Jehoiachin is addressed as king,--a circ.u.mstance by which _Berthold_ also supports his view, who, cutting the knot, advances the position that vers. 1-19 belong to the reign of Jehoiakim, but vers. 20--x.x.xii. 8 to the time when Jehoiachin was carried away to Babylon. (_Maurer_ and _Hitzig_ too suppose that vers.

20 ff. were added at a later period, under the reign of Jehoiachin).

But what difficulty is there in supposing that the Prophet transfers himself into the time, when he who is now a hereditary prince will be king,--of which the address is then a simple consequence? It is undeniable that a connection with chap. xxi. takes place, in which chapter Jeremiah announces to Zedekiah, threatened by the Chaldeans, the fall of the Davidic house, and the capture and destruction of the city. And this connection is to be accounted for by the fact that Jeremiah here connects with this announcement a former prophecy, in which, under the reign of Jehoiakim, he had foretold the fall of the Davidic house. The fate of the house of David is the subject common to both the discourses. _Kuper_ (_Jeremias_, _libror. Sacror. interpres_, p. 58), supposes that, in the message to Zedekiah, Jeremiah had, at that time, repeated his former announcement; but this supposition is opposed by the circ.u.mstance that, in chaps. xxii., xxiii., there is no trace of a reference to Zedekiah and his emba.s.sy. _Ewald_ a.s.serts that Jeremiah [Pg 401] here only puts together what "perhaps" he had formerly spoken regarding the three kings; but the words in chap. xxii.

1: "Go down into the house of the king of Judah and speak there this word," is conclusive against this a.s.sertion. For, according to these words, we have here not something put together, but a discourse which was delivered at a distinct, definite time; although nothing prevents us from supposing that the going down was done in the Spirit only.

We have here still to make an investigation concerning the names of the three kings occurring in chap. xxii., the result of which is of importance for the exposition of ver. 5.--It cannot but appear strange that the same king who, in the Book of the Kings, is called Jehoahaz, is here called Shallum only; that the same who is there called Jehoiachin, has here the name of Jeconias, which is abbreviated into Conias. The current supposition is, that the two kings had two names each. But this supposition is unsatisfactory, because, by the context in which they stand, the names employed by Jeremiah too clearly appear as _nomina realia_, as new names given to them by which the contrast between the name and thing was to be removed, and hence are evidently of the same nature with the _nomen reale_ of the good Shepherd in chap.

xxiii. 6, which, with quite the same right, could have been changed into a _nomen proprium_ in the proper sense, as has, indeed, been done by the LXX. The numerous pa.s.sages in the prophets, where the name occurs as a designation of the nature and character, _e.g._, Is. ix. 5, lxii. 4; Jer. x.x.xiii. 16; Ezek. xlviii. 35, plainly show that a name which has merely a prophetical warrant (and such an one alone takes place here, although the name Shallum occurs also in 1 Chron. iii. 15 [in the historical representation itself, however, Jehoahaz is used in the Book of Kings, and 2 Chron. x.x.xvi. 1], and the name Jeconias likewise in 1 Chron. iii. 16, while Jehoiakim is found not only in the Book of Kings, but also in Ezek. i. 2; for it is quite possible that those later writers may have drawn from Jeremiah), cannot simply be considered as a _nomen proprium_; but, on the contrary, that there is a strong probability that it is not so. And this probability becomes certainty when that name occurs, either _alone_, as _e.g._, Shallum, or _first_, as Jeconiah, (which occurs again in chap. xxiv. 1, xxvii. 20; the abbreviated [Pg 402] Coniah in x.x.xvii. 1, while, which is well to be observed, we have in the historical account, chap. lii. 31, Jehoiachin) in a context, such as that under consideration; especially when this phenomenon occurs in a prophet such as Jeremiah, in whom, elsewhere also, many traces of holy wit, and even punning, can be pointed out.--With reference to the calamity which more and more threatened Judah, pious Josiah had given to his sons names, which announced salvation. According to his wish, these names should be as many actual prophecies, and would, indeed, have proved themselves to be such, unless they who bore them had made them of no avail by their apostacy from the Lord, and had thus brought about the most glaring contrast between idea and reality. That comes out first in the case of Jehoahaz. He whom the Lord should _hold_, was violently and irresistibly carried away to Egypt. The Prophet, therefore, calls him Shallum, _i.e._, the _recompensed_,--not _retribution_, as _Hiller_, _Simonis_, and _Roediger_ think, nor _retributor_ according to _Furst_ (comp. _Ewald_ -- 154d); the same who, in 1 Chron. v. 38, is called Shallum, is in 1 Chron. ix. 11, called Meshullam--he upon whom the Lord has visited the wickedness of his deeds.--As regards the name Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, we must, above all things, keep in view the relation of these names to the promise given to David. In 2 Sam. vii. 12 it is said: "And I cause to rise up (???????) thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish (???????) his kingdom." This pa.s.sage contains the ground of _both_ names; and this is the more easily explained, since both of them have one author, Jehoiakim. Even his former name Eliakim had probably been given to him by his father Josiah with a view to the promise. When Pharaoh, however, desired him to change his name--as the name itself shows, we cannot but supply, in 2 Kings xxiii. 31, such a request to a proposal which was afterwards approved of by Pharaoh--he performed that change in such a manner as to bring it into a still nearer relation to the promise, in which, not El, but Jehovah, is expressly mentioned as He who promised; and indeed the matter proceeded from Jehovah, the G.o.d of Israel. As, however, from the whole character of Jehoiakim, we cannot suppose that the twofold naming proceeded from true piety, nothing is more natural [Pg 403] than to account for it from an opposition to the prophets. The centre of their announcements was formed by the impending calamity from the North, and the decline of the Davidic family. The promise given to David shall indeed be fulfilled in the Messiah; but not till after a previous deep abas.e.m.e.nt. Jehoiakim mocking at these threatenings, means to transfer the salvation from the future into the present. In his own name, and that of his son, he presented a standing protest to the prophetic announcement; and this protest could not but call forth a counter-protest, which we find expressed in the prophecy under consideration. The Prophet first overthrows the false interpretation: Jehoiakim is not Jehoiakim, and Jehoiachin is not Jehoiachin, chap.

xxii.; he then restores the right interpretation: the true Jehoiakim is, and remains, the Messiah, chap. xxiii. 5. As regards the first point, he. in the case of Jehoiakim, contents himself with the _actual_ contrast, and omits to subst.i.tute a truly significant name for the usurped one, which may most easily be accounted for from the circ.u.mstance, that he thought it to be unsuitable to exercise any kind of wit, even holy wit, against the then reigning king. But the case is different with regard to Jehoiachin. The first change of the name into Jeconiah has its cause not in itself; the two names have quite the same meaning; it had respect to the second change into Coniah only. In Jeconiah we have the Future; and this is put first, in order that, by cutting off the ?, the sign of the Future, he might cut off hope; a Jeconiah without the ? says only G.o.d establishes, but not that He _will_ establish. In reference to these names, _Grotius_ came near the truth; but he erred in the nearer determination, because he did not see the true state of the matter; so that, according to him, it amounts to a mere play: "The Jod," he says, "with which the name begins, is taken away, to intimate that his head shall be diminished; and a Vav is added at the end as a sign of contempt, _q.d._ that Coniah!" _Lightfoot_ comes nearer to the truth; yet even he was not able to gain a.s.sent to it (compare against him _Hiller_ and _Simonis_ who thought his views scarcely worth refuting), because he took an one-sided view. He remarks (_Harmon._ p. 275): "By taking away the first syllable, G.o.d intimated that He would not establish to the progeny of Solomon the [Pg 404]

uninterrupted government and royal dignity, as Jehoiakim, by giving that name to his son, seems to have expected." Besides these two, compare farther, _Alting_, _de Cabbala sacra_ -- 73.

In conclusion, we must still direct attention to chap. xx. 3. Who, indeed, could infer from that pa.s.sage, that, by way of change, _Pashur_ was called also _Magor-Missabib_?

Chap. xxiii. 1. "_Woe to shepherds that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord._"

It must be well observed that ?????? is here without the article, but, in ver. 2, with it. _Venema_ remarks on this: "A general woe upon bad shepherds is premised, which is soon applied to the shepherds of Judah, _q.d._, since Jehovah has denounced a woe upon all bad shepherds, therefore ye bad shepherds," &c. By the "shepherds," several interpreters would understand only the false prophets and priests.

Others would at least have them thought of, along with the kings. This view has exercised an injurious influence upon the understanding of the subsequent Messianic announcement, inasmuch as it occasioned the introduction into it of features which are altogether foreign to it. It is only when it is perceived, that the bad shepherds refer to the kings exclusively, that it is seen that, in the description of the good Shepherd, that only is applicable which has reference to Him as a King.

But the very circ.u.mstance that, according to a correct interpretation, nothing else is found in this description, is a sufficient proof that, by the bad shepherds, the kings only can be understood. But all doubt is removed when we consider the close connection of the verses under consideration with chap. xxii. In commenting upon chap. iii. 15, we saw that, ordinarily, rulers only are designated by the shepherds; compare, farther, chap. xxv. 34-36, and the imitation and first interpretation of the pa.s.sage under review by Ezekiel, in chap. x.x.xiv. Ps. lxxviii.

70, 71: "He chose David his servant, and took him from the sheep-folds.

He took him from behind the ewes to feed Jacob, His people, and Israel, His inheritance," shows that a typical interpretation of the former circ.u.mstances of David lies at the foundation of this _usus loquendi_; compare Ezek. x.x.xiv. 23, 24: "And I raise over them one Shepherd, and he feedeth them, my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be [Pg 405] their shepherd."--What is to be understood by the destroying and scattering, must be determined partly from ver. 3 and vers. 13 ff.

of the preceding chapter; partly from ver. 3 of the chapter before us.

The former pa.s.sages show that the acts of violence of the kings, their oppressions and extortions, come here into consideration (compare Ezek.

x.x.xiv. 2, 3: "Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed, &c., and with force and with cruelty ye rule them"), while the latter pa.s.sage shows that it is chiefly the heaviest guilt of the kings which comes into consideration, viz., all that by which they became the cause of the people's being carried away into captivity. To this belonged, besides their foolish political counsels, which were based upon unG.o.dliness (comp. chap. x. 21), the negative (_Venema_: "It was their duty to take care that the true religion, the spiritual food of the people, was rightly and properly exercised"), and positive promotion of unG.o.dliness, and of immorality proceeding from it, by which the divine judgments were forcibly drawn down. It is in this contrast of idea and reality (_Calvin_: "It is a contradiction that the shepherd should be a destroyer"), that the woe has its foundation, and that the more, that it is pointed out that the flock, which they destroy and scatter, is _G.o.d's_ flock. (_Calvin_: "G.o.d intimates that, by the unworthy scattering of the flock, an atrocious injury had been committed against himself") ??? ?????? must not be explained by: "the flock of my feeding," _i.e._, which I feed. For, wherever ????? occurs by itself, it always has the signification "pasture," but never the signification _pastio_, _pastus_ commonly a.s.signed to it. This signification, which is quite in agreement with the form of the word, must therefore be retained in those pa.s.sages also where it occurs in connection with ???, when it always denotes the relation of Israel to G.o.d. Israel is called the flock of G.o.d's pasture, because He has given to them the fertile Canaan as their possession, compare my remarks on Ps. lxxiv. 1. It is, at first sight, strange that a guilt of the rulers only is spoken of, and not a guilt of the people; for every more searching consideration shows that both are inseparable from one another; that bad rulers proceed from the development of the nation, and are, at the same time, a punishment [Pg 406] of its wickedness sent by G.o.d. But the fact is easily accounted for, if only we keep in mind that the Prophet had here to do with the kings only, and not with the people. To them it could not serve for an excuse that their wickedness was naturally connected with that of the people. This _natural_ connection was not by any means a necessary one, as appears from the example of a Josiah, in whose case it was broken through by divine grace. Nor were they justified by the circ.u.mstance, that they were rods of chastis.e.m.e.nt in the hand of G.o.d.

To this the Prophet himself alludes, by subst.i.tuting, in ver. 3: "I have driven away," for "you have driven away," in ver. 2. All which they had to do, was to attend to their vocation and duty; the carrying out of G.o.d's counsels belonged to Him alone. From what we have remarked, it plainly follows that we would altogether misunderstand the expression "flock of my pasture," if we were to infer from it a contrast of the _innocent_ people with the guilty kings. _Calvin_ remarks: "In short, when G.o.d calls the Jews the flock of His pasture, He has no respect to their condition, or to what they have deserved, but rather commends His grace which He has bestowed upon the seed of Abraham." The kings have nothing to do with the moral condition of the people; they have to look only to G.o.d's covenant with them, which is for them a source of obligations so much the greater and more binding than the obligations of heathen kings, as Jehovah is more glorious than Elohim. The moral condition of the people does, to a certain degree, not even concern G.o.d; how bad soever it is, He looks to His covenant; and when more deeply viewed, even the outward scattering of the flock is a gathering.

Ver. 2. "_Therefore thus saith the Lord the G.o.d of Israel, against the shepherds that feed my people: Ye have scattered my flock and driven them away, and have not visited them; behold, I visit upon you the wickedness of your doings, saith the Lord._"

In the designation of G.o.d as Jehovah the G.o.d of Israel, there is already implied that which afterwards is expressly said. Because G.o.d is Jehovah, the G.o.d of Israel, the crime of the kings is, at the same time, a _sacrilegium_; they have desecrated G.o.d. It was just here that it was necessary prominently to point out the fact, that the people still continued to [Pg 407] be G.o.d's people. In another very important aspect, they were indeed called _Lo-Ammi_ (Hos. i. 9); but that aspect did not here come into consideration. _Calvin_: "They had estranged themselves from G.o.d; and He too had, in His decree, already renounced them. But, in one respect, G.o.d might consider them as aliens, while, in respect to His covenant, He still acknowledged them as His, and hence He calls them His people."--The words "that feed my people," render the idea still more prominent and emphatic than the simple "the shepherds"

would have done, and hence serve to make more glaring the contrast presented by the reality. The words "you have not visited them," seem, at first sight, since graver charges have been mentioned before, to be feeble. But that which they did, appears in its whole heinousness only by that which they did not, but which, according to their vocation, they ought to have done. This reference to their destination imparts the greatest severity to the apparently mild reproof Similar is Ezek.

x.x.xiv. 3: "Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed, and ye feed not the flock." The visiting forms the general foundation of every single activity of the shepherd, so that the ?? ????? comprehends within itself all that which Ezekiel particularly mentions in chap. x.x.xiv. 4: "The weak ye strengthen not, and the sick ye heal not, and the wounded ye bind not up, and the scattered ye bring not back, and the peris.h.i.+ng ye seek not."--The words: "the wickedness of your doings," look back to Deut. xxviii. 20: "The Lord shall send upon thee curse, terror, and ruin in all thy undertakings, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly, _because of the wickedness of thy doings_, that thou hast forsaken me."

The gentle allusion to that fearful threatening in that portion of the Pentateuch, which was the best known of all, was sufficient to make every one supplement from it that, which was there actually and expressly uttered. Such an allusion to that pa.s.sage of Deuteronomy can be traced out, wherever the phrase ?? ?????? occurs, which, in later times, had become obsolete; compare chap. iv. 4 and xxi. 12 (in both of these pa.s.sages ????, too, is introduced); Is. i. 16; Ps. xxviii. 4; Hos. ix. 15.

Ver. 3. "_And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries whither I have driven them away, and I_ [Pg 408] _bring them back again to their folds, and they are fruitful and increase._"

Compare chap. xxix. 14, x.x.xi. 8, 10; Ezek. x.x.xiv. 12, 13: "As a shepherd looketh after his flock in the day that he is in the midst of his flock, the scattered, so will I look after my flock, and I deliver them out of all the places, where they have been scattered in the day of clouds and of darkness. And I bring them out from the nations, and gather them from the countries, and bring them to their land, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel, in the valleys, and in all the dwelling places of the land."--A spiritless clinging to the letter has, here too, led several interpreters to suppose, that the Prophet had here in view merely the return from the Babylonish captivity, and perhaps, also, the blessings of the times of the Maccabees, besides and in addition to it. Altogether apart from the consideration that, in that case, the fulfilment would very little correspond to the promise,--for, to the returning ones, Canaan was too little the land of G.o.d to allow of our seeing, in this return, the whole fulfilment of G.o.d's promise--we can, from the context, easily demonstrate the opposite. With the gathering and bringing back appears, in ver. 4, closely connected the raising of the good shepherds; and according to ver. 5, that promise is to find, if not its sole fulfilment, at all events its substance and centre, in the raising of David's righteous Branch, the Messiah. And from vers. 7, 8, it appears that it is here altogether inadmissible to suppose that these events will take place, one after the other. The particle ??? with which these verses begin, and which refers to the whole sum and substance of the preceding promises, shows that the bringing back from the captivity, and the raising of the Messiah, cannot, by any means, be separated from one another; and to the same result we are led by the contents of the two verses also. How indeed could it be said of the bodily bringing back from the captivity, that it would far outs.h.i.+ne the former deliverance from Egypt, and would cause it to be altogether forgotten? The correct view was stated as early as by _Calvin_, who says: "There is no doubt that the Prophet has in view, in the first instance, the free return of the people; but Christ must not be separated from this blessing of the deliverance, for, otherwise, it would be difficult to [Pg 409] show the fulfilment of this prophecy." The right of thus a.s.suming a concurrent reference to Christ is afforded to us by the circ.u.mstance, that Canaan had such a high value for Israel, not because it was its fatherland in the lower sense, but because it was the land of G.o.d, the place where His glory dwelt. From this it follows that a bodily return was to the covenant-people of value, in so far only as G.o.d manifested himself as the G.o.d of the land. And since, before Christ, this was done in a manner very imperfect, as compared with what was implied in the idea, the value of such a return could not be otherwise than very subordinate. And in like manner, it follows from it, that the gathering and bringing back by Christ is included in the promise. For wherever G.o.d is, there is Canaan. Whether it be the old fold, or a new one, is surely of very little consequence, if only the good Shepherd be in the midst of His sheep. _As a rule_, such externalities lie without the compa.s.s of prophecy, which, having in view the substance, refers, as to the way of its manifestation, to history. Into what ridiculous a.s.sertions a false clinging to the letter may lead, appears from remarks such as those of _Grotius_ on the second hemistich of the following verse: "They shall live in security under the powerful protection of the Persian kings." Protection by the world, and oppression by the world, differed very slightly only, in the case of the covenant-people. The circ.u.mstance that Gentiles ruled over them at all, was just that which grieved them; and this grief must therefore continue (compare Neh. ix. 36, 37), although, by the grace of G.o.d, a mild rule had taken the place of the former severe one; for this grace of G.o.d had its proper value only as a prophecy and pledge of a future greater one. The circ.u.mstance that it is to the _remnant_ only that the gathering is promised (compare Is. x. 22; Rom. ix. 27), points to the truth, that the divine mercy will be accompanied with justice. _Calvin_ remarks on this point: "The Prophet again confirms what I formerly said, viz., mercy shall not be exercised until He has cleansed His Church of filthiness, so great and so horrid, in which she at that time abounded." One must beware of exchanging the Scriptural hope of a conversion of Israel on a large scale, in contrast to the small ??????

at the time of Christ and the Apostles, for the hope of a _general_ conversion in the strict sense. [Pg 410] When considering the relation of G.o.d to the free human nature, the latter is absolutely impossible.

When consistently carried out, it necessarily leads to the doctrine of universal restoration. It is beyond doubt, that G.o.d _wills_ that all men should be saved; and it would necessarily follow that all men could be saved, if all the members of one nation could be saved. There is no word of Scripture in favour of it, except the p?? in Paul, which must just be interpreted and qualified by the contrast to the _small_ ??????, while there are opposed to it a number of declarations of Scripture,--especially all those pa.s.sages of the prophets where, to the remnant, to the escaped ones of Israel only, salvation is promised.

And, besides the Word of G.o.d, there are opposed to it His deeds also,--especially the great typical prefiguration of things spiritual by things external at the deliverance of the people from Egypt, when the _remnant_ only came to Canaan, while the bodies of thousands fell in the wilderness; and no less at the deliverance from Babylon, when by far the greatest number preferred the temporary delight in sin to delight in the Lord in His land.

Ver. 4. "_And I raise shepherds over them, and they feed them; and they shall fear no more, nor be terrified, neither be lost, saith the Lord._"

Even here, the reference to 2 Sam. vii. 12, and to the name of Jehoiakim, is manifest, although, in the subsequent verse, it appears still more distinctly, compare p. 401. This reference also is a proof in favour of this prophecy's having been written under Jehoiakim. The reference was, at that time, easily understood by every one; even the slightest allusion was sufficient. This reference farther shows that _Venema_, and several others who preceded him in this view, are wrong in here thinking of the Maccabees. These are here quite out of the question, inasmuch as they were not descended from David. Besides the contrast between the people's apostacy and G.o.d's covenant-faithfulness, the Prophet evidently has still another in view, viz., that between the apostacy of the Davidic house, and G.o.d's faithfulness in the fulfilment of the promise given to David. The single apostate members of this family are destroyed, although, appropriating to themselves the promise, they, in their names, promise deliverance and salvation to [Pg 411] themselves. But from the family itself, G.o.d's grace cannot depart; just because Jehovah is G.o.d, a true Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin must rise out of it. It thus appears that the Maccabees are here as little referred to as Ezra and Nehemiah, of whom _Grotius_ thinks. Much stronger ground is there for thinking of Zerubbabel, for his appearance had really some reference to the promise to David, although as a weak type and prelude only of the true fulfilment, to which he occupies the same relation, as does the gathering from the Babylonish captivity to the gathering by Christ. If, after all, we wish to urge the Plural, we must not, by any means, sever our verse from ver. 5, and declare this to be the sense: _first_ will I raise up to you shepherds; _then_, the Messiah. We must, in that case, following _C. B. Michaelis_, rather supplement: specially one, the Messiah. In _none_ of Jeremiah's prophecies are there different stages and degrees in the salvation; everywhere he has in his view the whole in its completion. Where this is overlooked, the whole interpretation must necessarily take a wrong direction, as is most clearly seen in the case of _Venema_. But there is no reason at all for laying so much stress on the Plural. Every Plural may be used for designating the idea of the whole species; and this kind of designation was here so much the more obvious, that the bad species, with which the good is here contrasted, consisted of a series of individuals. With the bad pastoral office, the Prophet here _first_ contrasts the good one; _then_ he gives, in ver. 5, a more detailed description of the individual who is to represent the species, in whom the idea of the species is to be completely realised. The correctness of this interpretation is confirmed by the comparison of the parallel pa.s.sage in chap. x.x.xiii. 15, which, almost _verbatim_, agrees with that under consideration, and in which only one descendant of David, viz., the Messiah, is spoken of And that is quite natural; for, in that pa.s.sage, there is no ant.i.thesis to the bad shepherds, which was the cause that here, at first, the species was made prominent. And another confirmation is afforded by Ezek. x.x.xiv. With him, too, one good shepherd is mentioned in contrast with the bad shepherds.--The words: "And they feed them" stand in contrast to "Who feed my people," in ver. 2. The shepherds mentioned in ver. 2 ought to feed the flock; but, instead of doing [Pg 412] that, they feed themselves (compare Ezek. x.x.xiv. 2); the shepherds, however, mentioned in our verse, really feed. The former are shepherds in name only, but, in reality, wolves; the latter are shepherds, both in name and reality.

??? must be taken in the signification "to be missing," "lacking."

(Compare the Remarks on chap. iii. 16.) There is an allusion to ??

????? in ver. 2. Because the bad shepherd does not visit, the sheep are not sought, _q.d._, they are lost; but those who did not visit, are now, in a very disagreeable manner, visited by G.o.d (??? ?????); the good shepherd visits, and, therefore, the sheep need not be sought. The clause: "They shall fear no more, nor be terrified," receives its explanation from Ezek. x.x.xiv. 8: "Because my flock are a prey, and meat to every beast of the field, because they have no shepherd, and because my shepherds do not concern themselves with the flock."

Ver. 5. "_Behold the days come, saith the Lord, and I raise unto David a righteous Branch, and He ruleth as a King, and acteth wisely, and worketh justice and righteousness in the land._"

The expression: "Behold the days come," according to the constant _usus loquendi_ of Jeremiah, does not designate a progress in time, in reference to what precedes, but only directs attention to the greatness of that which is to be announced. It contains, at the same time, an allusion to the contrast presented by the visible state of things, which affords no ground for such a thing. How dark soever the present state of things may be, the time is _still_ coming; although the heart may loudly say. _No_, the word of _G.o.d_ must be more certain.

Concerning ???, compare Isa. iv. 2, and the pa.s.sages of Zechariah there quoted, ???? stands here in the same signification as in Zech. ix.

9,--different from that which it has in Isa. liii. 11. In the latter pa.s.sage, where the Servant of G.o.d is described as the High Priest and sin-offering. His righteousness comes into consideration as the fundamental condition of justification; here, where He appears as King only,--as the cause of the diffusion of justice and righteousness in the land. That there is implied in this a contrast to the former kings, was pointed out as early as by _Abarbanel_: "He shall not be an unrighteous seed, such as Jehoiakim and his son, but a righteous [Pg 413] one." _Calvin_ also points out "the obvious ant.i.thesis between Christ and so many false, and, as it were, adulterous sons. For we know for certain that He alone was the righteous seed of David; for although Hezekiah and Josiah were legitimate successors, yet, when we look to others, they were, as it were, monsters. Except three or four, all the rest were degenerate and covenant-breakers." The words: "I raise unto David a righteous Branch" are here, as well as in chap. x.x.xiii. 15, not by any means equivalent to: a righteous Branch of David. On the contrary, David is designated as he to whom the act of raising belongs, for whose sake it is undertaken. G.o.d has promised to him the eternal dominion of his house. How much soever, therefore, the members of this family may sin against the Lord,--how unworthy soever the people may be to be governed by a righteous Branch of David, G.o.d, as surely as He is G.o.d, must raise Him for the sake of David. The word ?????? must not be overlooked. It shows that ??????, which, standing by itself, may designate also another government than by a king, such as, _e.g._, that of Zerubbabel, is to be taken in its full sense. And this qualification was so much the more necessary, that the deepest abas.e.m.e.nt of the house of David, announced by the Prophet in chap. xxii., compare especially ver. 30, was approaching, and that thereby every hope of its rising to _complete_ prosperity seemed to be set aside. Since, therefore, the faith in this event rested merely on the word, it was necessary that the word should be as distinct as possible, in order that no one might pervert, or explain it away. _Calvin_ remarks: "He shall rule as a King, _i.e._, He shall rule gloriously; so that there do not merely appear some relics of former glory, but that He flourish and be powerful as a King, and attain to a perfection, such as existed under David and Solomon; and even much more excellent."--As regards ?????, we have already, in our remarks on chap. iii. 15, proved that it never and nowhere means "to prosper," "to be prosperous," but always "to act wisely." It has been shown by _Calvin_ that even the context here requires the latter signification. He says: "The Prophet seems here rather to speak of right judgment than of prosperity and success; for we must read this in connexion with one another: He shall act wisely, and then work justice and [Pg 414] righteousness. He shall be endowed with the spirit of wisdom, as well as of justice and righteousness; so that he shall perform all the offices and duties of a king." Yet _Calvin_ has not exhausted the arguments which may be derived from the context. The _whole_ verse before us treats of the endowments of the King; the whole succeeding one, of the prosperity which, by these endowments, is imparted to the people. To this may still be added the evident contrast to the folly of the former shepherds, which was the consequence of their wickedness, and which, in the preceding chapter, had been described as the cause of their own, and the people's destruction; compare chap. x. 21: "For the shepherds are become brutish, and do not seek the Lord; therefore they do not act wisely, and their whole flock is scattered." But if here the signification "to act wisely" be established, then it is also in all those pa.s.sages where ????? is used of David; compare remarks on chap. iii. For the fact, that the Prophet has in view these pa.s.sages, and that, according to him, the reign of David is, in a more glorious manner, to be revived in his righteous Branch, appears from the circ.u.mstance that every thing else has its foundation in the description of David's reign, in the books of Samuel. Thus the words: "And he ruleth as a king, and worketh justice and righteousness in the land," refer back to 2 Sam. viii. 15: "And David reigned over all Israel, and David wrought justice and righteousness unto all his people." The foundation of the announcement of ver. 6 is formed by 2 Sam. viii. 14 (compare ver. 6): "And the Lord gave prosperity (?????) to David in all his ways." But if ?????, wherever it occurs of David, must be taken in this sense, then the LXX.

are right also in translating Is. lii. 13 by s???se?: for, in that pa.s.sage, just as in the verse under consideration, David is referred to as the type of the Messiah. The phrase ??? ???? ????? is by _De Wette_ commonly translated: "to _exercise_ justice and righteousness." But the circ.u.mstance that, in Ps. cxlvi. 7, he is obliged to give up this translation, proves that it is wrong. ??? must rather be explained by "to work," "to establish." ???? is here, as everywhere else, the objective right and justice; ????, the subjective righteousness. The _working_ of justice is the means by which _righteousness_ is wrought.

The forced dominion of justice is necessarily followed by the voluntary, [Pg 415] just as the judgments of G.o.d, by means of which He is sanctified _upon_ mankind, are, at the same time, the means by which He is sanctified _in_ them. The high vocation of the King to work justice and righteousness rests upon His dignity, as the bearer of G.o.d's image; comp. Ps. cxlvi. 7; chap. ix. 23: "For I the Lord work love, justice, and righteousness in the land." Chap. xxii. 15 is, moreover, to be compared, where it is said of Josiah, the true descendant of David, "he wrought justice and righteousness," and chap.

xxii. 3, where his spurious descendants are admonished: "Work justice and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, and do not oppress the stranger; the fatherless and the widow do not wrong, neither shed innocent blood in this place."

Farther, still, is the progress to be observed: the King is righteous, his righteousness pa.s.seth over from him to the subjects; then follows salvation and righteousness from the Lord.--To explanations, such as that of _Grotius_, who, by the righteous Branch, understands Zerubbabel, we here need the less to pay any attention, that the fact of his being in this without predecessors or followers palpably proves it to be erroneous. If, indeed, we could rely on _Theodoret's_ statement ("The blinded Jews endeavour, with great impudence, to refer this to Zerubbabel"--then follows the refutation), the older Jews must have led the way to this perverted interpretation. But we cannot implicitly rely on _Theodoret's_ statements of this kind. In the Jewish writings themselves, not the slightest trace of such an interpretation is to be found. The Chaldean Paraphrast is decidedly in favour of the Messianic interpretation: ??? ??? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?????

"Behold the days shall come, and I will raise up to David the righteous Messiah, (not ?????? 'the Messiah of the righteous,' as many absurdly read), saith the Lord." _Eusebius_ (compare _Le Moyne_, _de Jehova just.i.tia nostra_, p. 23), it is true, refutes the interpretation which refers it to Joshua, the son of Josedech; but we are not ent.i.tled to infer from this circ.u.mstance, that this view found supporters in his time. His intention is merely to guard against the erroneous interpretation of ??sed?? of the following verse in the Alexandrian version (?a? t??t? t? ???a a?t??, ? ?a??se? a?t?? ??????, ??sed??). It can scarcely be imagined that the translators themselves proceeded from this erroneous view. For [Pg 416] Josedech, the father of Joshua the high-priest, is a person altogether obscure. All which they intended, by their retaining the Hebrew form, was certainly only the wish, to express that it was a _nomen proprium_ which occurred here; and they were specially induced to act thus by the circ.u.mstance, that this name was, in their time, generally current, as one of the proper names of the Messiah.

Ver. 6. "_And in His days Judah is endowed with salvation, and Israel dwelleth safely; and this is the name whereby they shall call him: The Lord our righteousness._"

It has already been pointed out that the first words here look back to David. That which Jeremiah here expresses by several words, Zechariah expresses more briefly, by calling the Sprout of David ???? ?????

"righteous, and protected by G.o.d." It makes no difference that, in that pa.s.sage, the salvation, the inseparable concomitant of righteousness, is ascribed to the King, its possessor; while, here, it is ascribed to the people. For, in that pa.s.sage, too, it is for his subjects that salvation is attributed to the King who comes for Zion, just as he is righteous for Zion also. Israel must here be taken either in the restricted sense, or in the widest, either as the ten tribes _alone_, or as the ten tribes along with Judah. It is a favourite thought of Jeremiah, which recurs in all his Messianic prophecies, that the ten tribes are to partake in the future prosperity and salvation. He has a true tenderness for Israel; his bowels roar when he remembers them, who were already, for so long a time, forsaken and rejected. His lively hope for Israel is a great testimony of his lively faith. For, in the case of Israel, the visible state of things afforded still less ground for hope than in the case of Judah. There is here an allusion to Deut.

x.x.xiii. 28: ("And He thrusteth out thine enemy from before thee, and saith: Destroy") "And Israel dwelleth in safety (????? ????? ???), alone, Jacob looketh upon a land of corn and wine, and his heavens drop dew." There can be the less doubt of the existence of this allusion, that this expression occurs, besides in Deuteronomy, and in the verse under consideration, only once more in chap. x.x.xiii. 16,--that a reference to the majestic close of the blessing of Moses, which certainly was in the hearts and mouths of all the pious, was very natural, and that the word ???? has there its a.n.a.logy in ver. 29: [Pg 417] "Happy art thou, O Israel, who is like unto thee, a people saved (???????) by the Lord, the s.h.i.+eld of thy help, thy proud sword; and thine enemies flatter thee, and thou treadest upon their high places." This glorious destination of the covenant-people, which, hitherto, had been so imperfectly only realized (most perfectly under David, compare 2 Sam. viii. 6, 14), shall, under the reign of the Messiah, be carried out in such a manner that idea and reality shall fully coincide. The covenant-people is to appear in its full dignity.--In the second hemistich of the verse, the reading requires first to be established.

Instead of the reading ????????? which is found in the text, and which is the third pers. Sing. with the Suffix, several MSS. (compare _De Rossi_), have the third pers. Plur. ?????????. Several controversial writers, such as _Raim. Martini_, _Pug. Fid._ p. 517, and _Galatinus_, iii. 9, p. 126, (The Jews of our time a.s.sert that here Jeremiah did not say "they shall call," ?????????, as we read it, but "he shall call him,"

?????????; and they declare this to be the sense: "This is the name of Him who shall call him, viz., the Messiah: Our righteous G.o.d,") declare the latter to be unconditionally correct, and a.s.sert that the other had originated from an intentional Jewish corruption, got up for the purpose of setting aside the divinity of the Messiah, which, to them, was so offensive. This allegation, however, is certainly unfounded. It is true, that some Jewish interpreters availed themselves of the reading ????????? for the purpose stated. Thus _Rabbi Saadias Haggaon_, according to _Abenezra_ and _Mana.s.seh Ben Israel_, who explain: "And this is the name by which the Lord will call him: Our righteousness."

But it by no means follows from this, that they invented the reading; it may have existed, and they only connected their perversion with it.

That the latter was indeed the case, appears from the circ.u.mstance that by far the greater number of Jewish interpreters and controversialists rejected this perversion, because it was in opposition to the accents (compare especially _Abenezra_ and _Norzi_ on the pa.s.sage), and acknowledged ???? ????? to be the name of the Messiah. The reading ????????? must be unconditionally rejected, because it has by far the smallest external authority in its favour. It is true, that its supporters (comp. especially _Schulze_, _vollst. Critik der gewohnlichen_ [Pg 418] _Bibelausgaben_, S. 321) have endeavoured to make up for its deficiency in ma.n.u.script authority, by appealing to the authority of the ancient translators, all of whom, with the sole exception of the Alexandrian version, according to them, express it.

But this a.s.sertion is entirely without foundation. The _vocabunt eum_ of _Jonathan_ and the Vulgate is the correct translation of ?????????. And when _Jerome_, in opposition to the Alex., remarks that, according to the Hebrew, the translation ought to be: _Nomen ejus vocabunt_, he does not contend against their use of the Singular _per se_, but only against their arbitrarily supplying "Jehovah" as the subject; against their explaining "The Lord shall call," instead of "one" shall call.

The manner in which the false reading ????????? first arose, is clearly seen from the reasons by which its later defenders endeavour to support it; compare especially _Schulze_ l. c. The chief argument is the erroneous supposition that the third Plur. only could be used impersonally. To this was farther added the use of the rarer Suffix ??

instead of the common ?????--But from internal reasons, too, the reading ????????? is objectionable; the designation of the object of calling cannot be omitted.--There cannot be any doubt that we are not allowed to refer the Suffix in ????????? to Israel, (_Ewald_: "And this is their name by which they call them,") but to the Messiah. For it is only in this case, that those who call, viz., Judah or Israel, the Members of the Church, are indirectly mentioned in the preceding words; and the Messiah is, in both verses, the chief person to whom all the other clauses refer. At all events, the _then_ could not, in that case, have been omitted, as in this context every thing depends upon the connection of the salvation with the person of the King; and this connection must be clearly and distinctly expressed. We now come to ???? ?????. Great difference of opinion prevails as to the explanation of these words. The better portion of the Jewish interpreters, indeed, likewise consider them as names of the Messiah, but not in such a manner that He is called "Jehovah," and then, in apposition to it, "Our righteousness," but rather in such a manner that ???? ????? is an abbreviation of the whole sentence. Thus the Chaldean, who thus paraphrases: "And this is the name by which they shall call him: Righteousness [Pg 419] will be bestowed upon us from the face of the Lord;" _Kimchi_, "Israel shall call the Messiah by this name: The Lord our righteousness, because at His time, the righteousness of the Lord will be to us firm, continuous, everlasting;" the ??? ????? (in _Le Moyne_, p. 20): "Scripture calls the name of the Messiah: The Lord our righteousness, because He is the Mediator of G.o.d, and we obtain the righteousness of G.o.d by His ministry." Besides to chap. x.x.xiii. 16, they refer to pa.s.sages such as Exod. xvii. 15, where Moses calls the altar "Jehovah my banner;" to Gen. x.x.xiii. 20, where Jacob calls it ??

???? ?????. _Grotius_ follows these expositors, only that he dilutes the sense still more. The other Christian expositors, (the Vulgate excludes every other interpretation, even by its translation: _Dominus justus noster_) on the contrary, contend with all their might for the opinion, that the Messiah is here called Jehovah, and hence must be truly G.o.d. That which _Da.s.sov_ i. h. 1. remarks: "Since then the Messiah is called Jehovah, we have firm ground for inferring, that He is truly G.o.d, inasmuch as that name is peculiar and essential to the true G.o.d," is the argument common to all of them. _Le Moyne_ wrote in defence of this explanation a whole book, which we have already quoted, but from which little is to be learned. Even _Calvin_, who elsewhere sometimes erred from an exaggerated dread of doctrinal prejudice, decidedly adopts it. He remarks: "Those who judge without prejudice and bitterness, easily see that that name belongs to Christ, in so far as He is G.o.d, just as the name of the Son of David is a.s.signed to Him in reference to His human nature. To all those who are just and unprejudiced, it will be clear that Christ is here distinguished by a twofold attribute; so that the Prophet commends Him to us, both as regards the glory of His deity, and his true human nature." By righteousness he, too, understands justification through the merits of Christ, "for Christ is not righteous for himself, but received righteousness in order to communicate it to us" (1 Cor. i. 30). We have the following observations to make in reference to this exposition. 1.

The princ.i.p.al mistake in it is this, that it has been overlooked that the Prophet here expresses the nature of the Messiah and of His time in the form of a _nomen proprium_. If the words were thus: "And this is Jehovah our righteousness," we should be fully [Pg 420] ent.i.tled to take Jehovah as a personal designation of the Messiah. But in reference to a name, it is as common, as it is natural, to take from a whole sentence the princ.i.p.al words only, and to leave it to the reader or hearer to supply the rest. In the case of all _naming_, brevity is unavoidable, as is proved by the usual abbreviation of even those proper names which consist of one word only. The two cases mentioned by _Kimchi_ will serve as instances. "Jehovah my Banner" is a concise expression for: "This altar is consecrated to Jehovah my Banner;" ??

???? ????? for: "This altar belongs to the Almighty, the G.o.d of Israel." A number of other instances might easily be quoted; one need only compare, in _Hiller's_ and _Simonis'_ Onomastica, the names which are compounded with Jehovah. Thus, _e.g._, Jehoshua, _i.e._, Jehovah salvation, is a concise expression for: Jehovah will grant me salvation; Jehoram, _i.e._, _Jehovah altus_, for: I am consecrated to the exalted G.o.d of Israel. Most perfectly a.n.a.logous, however, is the name Zedekiah, _i.e._, the righteousness of the Lord, for: He under whose reign the Lord will grant righteousness to His people. This name, moreover, seems to refer directly to the prophecy before us. Just as Eliakim, by changing his name into Jehoiakim, intended to represent himself as he in whom the prophecy in 2 Sam. vii. would be fulfilled; so he who was formerly called Mattaniah changed, at the instance of Nebuchadnezzar (who had, indeed, no other object in view than that, as a sign of his supremacy, his name should be different from that by which he was formerly called, and who left the choice of the name to Mattaniah himself), his name into Zedekiah, imagining that in a manner so easy, he would become the Jehovah Zidkenu announced by Jeremiah, and longed for by the people. 2. The preceding argument only showed that there is nothing opposed to the exposition: He by whom and under whom Jehovah will be our righteousness. A positive proof, however, in favour of it is offered by the parallel pa.s.sage, chap. x.x.xiii. 15, 16: "In those days and at that time will I cause a righteous Branch to grow up unto David; and He worketh justice and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely, and this is the name which they shall give to _her_: Jehovah our righteousness." Here Jehovah Zidkenu by no means [Pg 421] appears as the name of the Messiah, but as that of Jerusalem in the Messianic time. In vain are all the attempts which have been made to set aside this troublesome argument. They only serve to show, that it cannot be invalidated. _Le Moyne_, "in order that no way of escape may be left to the enemies," brings forward, p. 298 ff., five different expedients among which the reader may choose. But their very difference is a plain sign of arbitrariness; and that appears still more clearly, when we begin to examine them individually. Several interpreters a.s.sume an _enallage generis_ ?? = ??, "and thus shall they call _him_." _Le Moyne_ thinks that we need have no difficulty in a.s.suming such an _enallage_. Others explain: "And he who shall call, _i.e._, invite her, is Jehovah our righteousness." A simple reference to the pa.s.sage before us is decisive against it; the parallelism of the two pa.s.sages is too close to admit of ???? in the second pa.s.sage being understood in a sense altogether different. By the same argument, the explanations by _Hottinger_ (Thesaur. Philolog. p. 17l), and _Da.s.sov_: "This shall come to pa.s.s when the Lord, the Lord our righteousness, shall call her," are also refuted, quite apart from the consideration, that ??? cannot by any means signify _when_. The most recent defender of the old orthodox view, _Schmieder_, cuts the knot by simply severing our pa.s.sage from chap. x.x.xiii. 16-3. The ancient explanation, which refers ?????, "our righteousness," to the remission of sins, does not even correctly understand this word. It is true that the remission of sins is often represented as one of the chief blessings of the Messianic time; but here it is out of place. According to the context, it is actual justification, _i.e._, salvation according to another mode of viewing it, which is here spoken of (compare remarks on Mal. iii. 20).

Righteousness in this sense implies, of course, the forgiveness of sins; but, besides, the righteousness of life is comprehended in it.